https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12927 Penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act was sustained because the assessee failed to prove that the tax audit report had been completed by the due date or that reasonable cause existed for non-production. A contemporaneous statement recorded during survey showed that the report was not with the managing partner and was "not ready" on 24 November 1992, which directly conflicted with a later affidavit claiming completion in October 1992. The court accepted the contemporaneous evidence over the later explanation and held the alleged compliance and cause for default unproved, so the penalty challenge failed. en-us Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 May 2009 13:09:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12927 Penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act was sustained because the assessee failed to prove that the tax audit report had been completed by the due date or that reasonable cause existed for non-production. A contemporaneous statement recorded during survey showed that the report was not with the managing partner and was "not ready" on 24 November 1992, which directly conflicted with a later affidavit claiming completion in October 1992. The court accepted the contemporaneous evidence over the later explanation and held the alleged compliance and cause for default unproved, so the penalty challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12927